Wearing the Bible Belt

The Resurgence: 8 things that didn't compel me to reject Jesus.

2010-03-03T00:47:00.004-06:00

http://theresurgence.com/things_that_might_compel
The Resurgence is an attempt from Christians to restore faith in Jesus in America- as if there is a serious lack of faith happening here. We're one of the most Christian countries in the world, and the most religious first-world nation outside of the Vatican.
So we're got some resurging to do apparently- they've written a blog post about 8 things that might compel you to reject Jesus. These are listed below, with appropriate responses from me of course, being that this is my blog.
I'll be going through it, let's see if they can't save my soul by the end of the post, shall we?

1. Theology
This argument is rather weak- the quote is "Don’t reject him theologically." I am not sure exactly what they're trying to accomplish here; the paragraph has little meaning. The point is that Atheists reject theological teachings being that they aren't based in fact, but in speculation about ancient literature.

2. Control

The author attempts to make the point that people in Nazereth were desperate for miracles and divine intervention, and sought help from Jesus when he came by. He declined to do miracles and that was because he didn't want them to believe they had controlled him- and that this opinion is carried over to today, where, when Jesus or God aren't what we want them to be (kind, all-loving, consistent in their instructions?) then we get mad and throw a fit.

The supposed situation in Nazereth brings up an excellent point. People were poor, hungry and suffering from plagues. What they did was ask for help from someone who they were told, could help. If your child was dying of a disease and you had no hope of saving them, and a mysterious stranger rolls into town claiming to be able to heal the sick, what is the first thing you're going to do? Beg for help in the way you know how to, or that is culturally appropriate to you.

This is apparent given the hysteria surrounding the Autism Spectrum, people are jumping on the idea that vaccines cause Autism because we want something, anything to blame and some kind of control over the destiny of our children, and feeling like there is nothing that could have been or ever could be done is absolutely shattering.

A desperate situation, and the savior of mankind walks in to town and is offended by pleas and demands for help? Especially when he seems to be uniquely in the position to lend support?

Humans want things. We want to be able to live, and we want to be happy, and we have a strong desire to reproduce. These drives are what cause the cooperation of our civilization. If your neighbor had a cure for a disease ailing someone in your family, and he didn't share it with you, or tried to coerce you in some way with it, he would be regarded as an evil person. Yet, when someone who claims to be God Himself refuses to help- this act isn't evil, it's him trying to teach us an important lesson about control.

The analogy drawn with Christianity is generally the parent-and-child one- so let's use it. If your child is trapped screaming under a pile of rocks, this is not the time to teach him to use his inside voice.

3. Greed

The foundation of society is Greed. It's the reason we have capitalism. Most of the Christian right hates socialism with a deep passion that rivals only their faith in the creator, but we'll try not to lump all Christians in one political pot for now.

Fighting against your strongest instinct- self-preservation- is hard. It's usually only possible when the life of your child is at risk, and so "to eat of her final meal before she starved to death." is an illustration that might be... inaccurate, to put it politely. But hey, it's a tenet of your religion, so let's work with that principle too.

So let me get this straight- Some guy tells you he's God. He won't help you not starve to death, and he seems to be a bit down on his luck. He also says not to be greedy, yet he takes food from a starving widow. In what universe does this make any sense at all? Let me reiterate- Jesus Christ Himself visits a town stricken with poverty and disease and uses as his ultimate test...hospitality?

Would you go to Haiti right now (sorry to use you like this Haiti... Please text 'HAITI' to 90999) and base your support on whether or not people hand over their food and water? Go from town to down with secret bags of rice and gallons of potable water but not hand them over until they pass a personality test? What kind of horrible human being could do that? I forget- the capacity of God is infinite.

4. Selfishness

This paragraph, really, is just a repeat of the last one. Greed is literally a synonym for selfishness. It's used in the definition. So you'll have to forgive me for not wasting your time. See above.

5. Familiarity

I believe what's being stated here is the staycation phenomenon that's sweeping the nation. Grew up in your hometown? Great! Why not visit it through the eyes of a tourist? New yorkers can have a lot of fun, but people in Waco, Texas aren't as lucky.

Basically, this deals with belief that already exists, or people who grew up in church culture that ultimately rejected it.

I'd love to go into the fantastic amount of detail and environmental, physical, emotional and geographical variables that lead into a decision to reject Jesus, and perhaps I will- or maybe you can just head over to http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/ and read some stories of why people stop believing.

Just know that it's almost never "I just didn't get excited enough".

6. Comfort

I'm sure for some people, it's easier to just be an Atheist. Maybe up north, or out west. I live in the bible belt. I live in Dallas Texas. Within a mile of my house (and I live DOWNTOWN) there are no less than 38 churches. That's just google maps- not every church is listed there.

I have lost jobs, friends, family and even lovers to prejudice. I have been spit on, slapped, kicked out of cars and had bibles thrown at me. My cousin was left at school for three days until child protective services came and picked him up, and had a long talk with my aunt, because he said he didn't believe in God.

Being an Atheist isn't easy. You can't do something bad and ask for forgiveness- you have to live with that guilt until you die. Knowing you're going to die, and that there isn't anything after that is terrifying. Knowing that shit could go south at any moment- the sun could flare, a rock could hit us, a disease could kill us, a supervolcano could block the sun and we'd all freeze or starve- the certainty that Christians have- the ignorance is something I wish I could capture. But I can't. I know how science works, and that a healthy skeptical attitude has saved me from many an ill. Honestly, I don't see what's so hard about being a Christian, except believing in something you have no idea is true or not. Living by a book that's a good 7 or 8 empires old is hard enough, but no one (including the author of "The Resurgence") lives by ALL of it... they pick and choose what is and isn't important. Honestly, if I could be a Christian, I might try it out. But I can't- they haven't met my threshold for proof (which is apparently pretty low- I do believe in evolution after all...) and so I stay abstinent from theology.

7. Embarrassment

Again, apparently NO ONE is a Christian and it just SUCKS. They're completely persecuted and they never get 'cool points'. Oh No. I feel SO sorry for you.

Try saying "No, I don't go to church, or believe in God" at your next job interview. Go on, try it.

8. Religion

I absolutely LOVE when Christians try to make it seem like their faith isn't a religion. It's not a religion, they say, it's a relationship.

Yeah, quacks like a duck, has feathers and a beak. Floats on the water.

It's a religion.

Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;
Relationship: a relation between people;

Which one of these defines what you do every Sunday, and what you talk about in scripture, and the book you read from? You're not speaking to a physical person, you're describing how you feel about an abstract concept(infinity) that was supposed to somehow be represented somehow in a person who could be killed- through some arbitrary rules He Himself made up, about how He had to die in order to save us all.

This is not a relationship- this is a religion- and it makes no damn sense.

And that is why I reject Jesus.

That, and people who write stupid posts like these.

Disproof of one theory does not validate another.

2009-07-09T14:29:00.000-05:00

This is a common logical fallacy committed by Christians, Creationists and other religions the world over. Disproving an aspect(or attempting to disprove) of someone else's theory does not suddenly give yours more credence. This is the fallacy of the False Dichotomy- the idea that there are only two choices. This usually goes hand in hand with the idea that two things are inseperably related - "Are you a patriot and do you support the war, or are you a terrorist and you are against it?" is a common theme, but there are others. "Do you reject God's Teachings and believe in evolution or are you a righteous person and reject evolution?" is another.
These are loaded questions and serve no purpose other than to confuse the listener into believing the proposition.

Tearing down someone else's argument does not validate your own- for all you have actually done is proven them wrong. This does not mean your idea has any validity- proving that one religion is false does not prove that yours is true, nor does attacking evolution create a case for creationism.

Many people believe Creationism is the "default" and that evolution is the one who must bear the burden of proof, when this is not the case. Creationism has no proof behind it- there is no evidince of design or forethought to any genetic structure or to any creature's actual biological structure. Even if evolution were to be torn down and discarded as a theory, creationism couldn't be accepted on these grounds as they have offered no proof of their own.

Because of this, the current "Teach the Controversy" method of getting Christianity in the classroom will fail because it lends itself to this falacy. Upon giving precedent to theories not accpeted by mainstream science being taught in the classroom things will certainly go very arwy for science classes, as equal time must be given to other unaccepted theories.

As you can see, this kind of thinking is dangerous because it does not take into account any kind of diversity of thought at all, as well as having the unfortunate tendancy to lump people into categories they would not typically fit into.

Words from on High: Morals, or How Convert an Atheist: Part 3: The Reckoning

2009-07-02T20:05:00.007-05:00

Sequels are fun. Trilogies? Only for epics- and what is more epic than saving souls?

So- you've got this religion. So far, you haven't found a miracle, and none of your prophecies stick to the wall. Fear not, as I propose a third option among my list of conversion techniques, and it's a doosey.

Item the Third: Morality
Conversion Status: Absolute, and it should stick
Ease of Evidence: Easy- all you have to do is armchair philosopher me into a corner. Or should I revise that to "Harder than it looks."

All I purpose for you to do is to find me a religion that is absolute in it's morality. From the beginning.

Being that morals are tricky things because morality is defined as : "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"- but since good is defined as "Morally Admirable" and evil is defined as "Morally Wrong" we find ourselves with a circular definition that leaves the true meaning subjective. So we'll go another route, as this one will take us toward every known religion on the planet.

What I am looking for is a religion that not only sticks to it's convictions but also has absolute moral values that one can use in every situation- a religion that does not contradict itself morally. Once wrong, always wrong and once right, always right. A religion that does not allow itself to be marred by the precedent of evil being tolerated, one that speaks from a creator that has absolute goodness in their heart.
I will follow a religion that has a true north moral compass, that will point it's followers undoubtedly past the eras of bloodshed, beyond underhanded tactics such as deceit, slavery and genocide. These followers will be admired among their peers, a testament to humanity- for all our flaws a moral guide that could not be misinterpreted to condone hate, killing or torture, a religion that outright denies the animal taint in human benevolence and rises above our humble roots to truly transcend our humanity, bringing us as close as possible to godhood.

Now, I know what you're going to say- "My religion is moral! It's the only morality" or some variation of such. Allow me to give you a checklist, see if your religion matches all of these criteria. I won't fault your followers, but the actual texts of the religion must have always stated thus:

Must not ever discriminate between human beings. Sex, Race, Sexual Orientation, Disability. Humans are fundamentally the same- a creator and truly good being would not only mention this, but make it a tenet.
Human Rights Violations are right out. Killing, Slavery, Rape, Violence. These are all violations of our rights and must never be tolerated
Deception by individuals, or by the Church. A true religion needs no lies, cover ups, conspiracy. Let the light shine in and reveal pristine cisterns of truth.
Must be written in a transcendent language understandable by mankind. Something that is clear, concise and translatable through the ages. A creator with foreknowledge of the future would know that this is paramount to the success of human kind.
Must protect children, and those who cannot speak for themselves. There is nothing about child abuse, pedophilia, the rights of those who are invalid or in a comatose state in any holy book I have read, and in many places calls for horrendous crimes to be done against them.
Must account for the environment, and the future. Morally, we must assure our great grandchildren have water to drink and air to breathe- it is through inaction we commit indirect violations of their rights to the pursuit of happiness.

Now- most objections to this is that these were the morals in the context of the society the books were written in. This is, while true, not a valid argument. Killing, Rape, Slavery, Child Abuse, Incest- these things have been wrong to do since we developed complex central nervous systems and are wrong today. They have always been wrong. The people who suffered, the planet that was damaged and the trauma that was done will not go away because of the ignorance of the times or the will of the culture- a truly good God would have given these laws to man as soon as we could write them- they would ensure that ignorance would never be an excuse to harm others and have made it abundantly clear that these things were taboo from the start.

Now- since these are subjective terms, I shall give you a sporting chance. Give me a book or a creed that is consistent all the way through- then argue why it is morally absolute. Please be aware that I shall go over this statement very thoroughly and more than likely, you will lose. Why? Because there is no such text.

How to convert an Atheist: Part Two - Miracles

2009-06-25T16:00:00.000-05:00

Today I will be dealing with a contested subject among Atheists and Christians alike.
Miracles.
This proof that will indeed convert me very quickly is extremely difficult to produce depending on your definition of a miracle. Since you're trying to convert me specifically here, we'll use my definition and then I'll go about converting the rest of those stubborn unbelievers.

Item the Second: Miracles
Conversion Status: Absolute until proven false
Ease of Evidence: Difficult

Well you're off to a good start- every religion claims miracles were done(and usually are the basis for the religion in the first place), and that miracles happen frequently still.
I'd like to see one.
Here's how you do it: Predict when and where a miracle will occur(you can use prophecy here for a double whammy) and get me there to witness it. OR if your particular religion grants YOU the ability to perform one, simply throw one down right there.
But Liz, you ask, what miracle would you like us to do? I can speak in tongues or attest that the sun rises every day- isn't that enough to inspire your faith?
No. Let's define a miracle, shall we?
"A miracle is a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle-worker." This is from Wikipedia, which is a website I can only assume Christians have seen and had a chance to edit- thusly it's the accepted definition.
I have previously defined what does not count as a miracle- things that have explanations you just don't understand, or things that are mundane but "good" (finding your car keys or overcoming a disease) and things that have been proven not to be miracles, but are established phenomena of the human psyche or emotional reactions.
So- while your mother overcoming cancer is not a miracle, everyone in an entire hospital suddenly overcoming their ailments with no medical explanation might be.
Here are some examples:
Amputee Limb Regrowth
Verifiable Resurrection (not just brain death- but total cessation of life processes and decomposition begins)
Translocation or Transmutation of objects(again, verifiable only please)
Demonstration of abilities not possibly possessed by an individual- heavy investigation required

Things that do not represent a miracle-
Things that have no apparent cause(investigate. Don't draw a conclusion first, then test for it.)
Mundane Occurrences
Occurrences that through denial of established scientific fact, then lack a cause
Things that have a natural or explainable cause

Proofs I will accept for a miracle:
Witnessing it personally
Testimony of multiple witnesses that were not in a highly-emotional state, at least one who is/was a skeptic, with correlating evidence(pictures, video footage, the end result of the miracle) - this will be investigated thoroughly.
Cataclysmic evidence (IE, mountains that have actually moved, geological evidence, must be material)

Proofs that I will not accept:
Your personal testimony
Testimony from ancient texts
Testimony from a large group of people in a highly-emotional state
Testimony from individuals unable to think critically about other things
Video evidence alone, or pictures alone, or transmogrified object alone.
Proofs of non-miracles, or miracles that could be fakes(stigmata, speaking in tongues, telepathy) - you will have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is true, due to the ubiquitous nature of falsehoods surrounding these.

The idea of a miracle is however, difficult to maintain. As the late, great Arthur C. Clarke once said- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." and rightly so. I could travel back to any point before 200 years ago and perform magic with only the knowledge of today- not even the technology. Miracles performed in ancient times could only be the result of lack of knowledge about the world around them leading them to believe in a supernatural cause.
Do not be surprised if a miracle you have come to believe in gets debunked or explained- this is only the march of progress. It does not disprove your faith, only fails to affirm it, and returns to you the burden of positive proof, a reason to believe.

And I give unto thee, a LIST. How to convert an Atheist: Part 1

2009-06-24T16:15:00.000-05:00

So- my Christian (or any religion) readers, are you up to the monumental task of converting an Atheist?
The reward: saving a soul from eternal damnation. And the satisfaction of proving yourself right, which is always fun.
Atheists: If you disagree, or have additional caveats to these challenges, please post below.

For the next few days I am going to post a guide to converting Atheists. Giving these proofs will, depending on the category of the claim, convert us there on the spot, or will give us serious pause.

I'll post the stats for the claim, and then you must read all of the conditions(as in, don't stop at the title.). Post in the comments, e-mail me or blog about it and link to my blog(which will provide a trackback url so I can see it) and we'll get to the business of my(and many others) salvation.
Please note: I began this list inspired by this video- but I am adding a substantial amount of information as well as rejecting some, and adding my own.

The first thing that could convince me you're on the money about this whole God/Holy Book thing is the question of Prophecy.

Item the First: Prophecy
Conversion Status: Absolute
Ease of evidence: Difficult

The first thing that would probably convince me that your book/ideas are the genuine article is a prophecy. Let me first define a prophecy:
A prophecy is a prediction of the future that relies on information not available to the prophet at the time, is clear and concise about its predictions and gives accurate results. It also has a lot of specific information attached to it, so it cannot be interpreted to apply to more than one event.
Now, exclusions:
A prophecy is not vague and does not rely on heavy symbolism to describe the event. Descriptions of prophecy can be a little off, as someone from another time would describe technology of today(steel birds are airplanes, horseless carriages are cars, etc.) but things like "a great darkness upon the heart of man" or "a savior will deliver us from evil" are very vague. They could apply to Jesus, Barack Obama and even Hitler. "Evil" is a very loosely defined word and "deliver us from" could mean anything. "A great darkness" could be the evils of society, or a disease that attacks the cardiovascular system. Any of these could be interpreted to also pertain to multiple events- it must be either a one-time occurrence or something date-related.
A prophecy cannot also be self-fulfilling, as in "the Jews returning to Israel" or a statement made about someone specific about their destiny, and then that person doing their best to fulfill that destiny. This is of course perfectly fine in the case of performing miracles, or other supernatural occurrences.

As for prophecies in the past:
Prophecies have to have undeniable proof to have actually happened. Prophecies such as the ones predicting Jesus, or aspects of his life or later events in the bible(not counting things that have not happened, like revelations) could easily have been written to fit each other, like Jesus being written about to fit information in prophecy previously written about, or prophecies in the old testament that have not been verified as to predate Jesus that could have been inserted later.

Actual evidence you must present:
Historical documents that prove the authenticity of the prophecy, as in letters from the era regarding it, or historians(that are credited and respected among the general historical community) that attest to the document's authenticity, and why they attest to it. Carbon dating is also accepted- but only on older documents as things that occurred less than a few hundred years ago are difficult to pin down.
Photos or evidence of the documents themselves.
Evidence of the event(as long as it's not happening now, or recently, where we might have video evidence).
Evidence that the event is not applicable to other events in history, or that the interpretation has not been stretched to the point of metaphor.

Comming out of the Chapel: How to tell your parents you believe differently.

2009-06-21T16:29:00.000-05:00

We've all seen this video - but there does not really exist a good guide that goes over dealing with the consequences of your decision, and the fallout you might face from your family- for people still living with their parents.
This topic is intended for people under or around 18 who still must live in their parents houses, and who still have to deal with their parents rules, but do not want to "live a lie" so to speak, or go to church.

The first step you have to do is define what you believe. As an Atheist, I find that using the word "Atheist" does not really accurately describe my beliefs as well as many people think it does, due to connotations imposed by society and training most people receive in order to "deal" with us.
So this is the first step. It is OK to say that you don't know what you believe, but we'll get to that.

Take out a piece of paper(or open notepad++) and start writing. State what you believe about several key issues, as you will be asked these questions and you want to get your story straight.
First, write down if you believe in God, and if so, define what you think God is and why you believe what you do/don't about it.
Second, if you are coming/going from Christianity, explain your thoughts on Jesus.
Key points are whether he existed, whether he was the son of god and what he said. Also under this topic, address the bible and how you feel/don't about it.
Third, address what you have changed about your world view, and what actions/implications this has. If you suddenly find yourself religious, explain the new morals and laws you must live by. If you have become a Freethinker, explain what Freethought is and why you now accept it. I'll create a specific guide and give a template for Freethought later and you can take what you need from that.

Write these down and then, print them out. It is very important to write them in a way that is not purposefully offensive or snarky, as you're not trying to incite your parents, you are merely bringing them up to speed.
Write the declarations as you would if you were writing them to your best friend. You might even have to write one for your friends if you are coming out of the church and so, you might use the same one for everyone (maybe leave out the jokes and slang for your parents though.)
Then, read them aloud to someone you can trust that shares your viewpoint, and then someone who does not. Gage their reactions. Ask if there is anything you should add or take out. Practice on your friends.

Then, mentally prepare yourself. Something you are probally beginning to realize as you get older is that your parents really are just people, and they make the same mistakes you do and have the same emotions. The main reason they act as they do is because they watched you grow up. They have seen you do stupid, disgusting and hilarious things and it is hard to adjust to age- our brains really aren't built to handle it. People that change over time usually do it slowly after they grow up, but watching someone grow up is a different matter entirely.
Also, when you have a child, you have certain goals and ideas in mind for that child and having them go against them/you is a very difficult process to watch. Teaching someone something and then having them not only disbelieve you but turn all the way around and go in a different direction can be very emotional and leave you wondering where you went wrong.
Another thing, your parents have been around longer than you, and have seen more things than you have. It's hard to accept advice from your younger siblings or children you know, so why should it be any different for your parents?
Also, keep in mind that faith/lack of faith happens over time, and even slower for people once their brains stop growing (around age 20) and so you aren't going to argue them on to your side.
It's not like arguing the difference between digital cameras or cars. It's an entire way of thinking and a lot of their lives are usually consumed by it- so there is no magic gotcha statement.
These things are good points to include in your speech, that you understand them and want them to understand as well.

Also, make sure you mention why you are telling them, what you actually want to come of it. Of course, being closer as a family due to openness is the best reason, but maybe you do/don't want to attend church and maybe you do/don't want to be called upon to say grace at the table- and lastly you would like the chance to honestly talk about your faith/lack thereof with people who are close to you.

Now that you have your speech, and you have practiced it in front of friends, family or the hate machine of the internet(you can also e-mail me and I will take a look, even for people who aren't Atheists) you are ready to give it to your parents.
This might seem like something that is scary, or it might seem fun- but either way its not something to rush into. Showing constraint and doing this the right way will show maturity, and make it easier for them to take you seriously.

First, tell your parents you have made an important decision and you want to talk to them about it, but you want to do it when there will be no interruptions and with just them. I strongly suggest not having siblings around when you do this(unless they are toddlers or younger).

Make sure you have the answers to most of the big questions that they will ask ready. Looking uncertain will usually make you look like you haven't thought this through as much as you have and will cause you to lose credibility.
Make sure your attitude is under control- do not be snarky or subversive, as you don't want to send the message that you are just doing this to rebel. You want them to realize this is not just a phase and you are really serious- and that you will not be swayed by threats or punishments, or additional time in church. What you believe and why comes in very, very handy here.

Read your speech. Be honest, and open. Explain why you believe what you do and that you are not doing it for any other reason than your quest for the truth. Tell your parents it is important that they not interrupt and ask them to save questions for the end. Tell them that you have prepared a speech for this reason and that their questions will probably be answered if they allow you to finish your whole speech.

After the speech is finished, there will probably be an emotional reaction of some kind. They may get angry and threaten to punish you- take things away, kick you out of the house, etc. Realize that this is an emotional reaction and that you should wait for them to think about it. Most likely, they will say things out of fear or anger that they do not mean, much like you have done in the past. Remember we are all human beings and we make mistakes.
Ensure that, just in case, there is someone who will let you stay for a few days- but do not leave immediately if things get tough. You can retreat to your room if you want to escape yelling and/or derogatory remarks but don't leave as you might lose valuable opportunities for really constructive dialogue- and if you leave without their permission you will lose a great deal of credibility. It might be extremely tempting, but riding through the storm will be worth it in the end, in most cases.
If you are in fact in danger of bodily harm, do leave and give them time to cool down. But make sure it is not just a gut reaction and that you are actually in danger- it will not help at all if you act just as irrationally as they do.

You might have consequences as a result of this decision- like seeing a counselor/church leader or being grounded. There's not much you can do but stick to it, and it will end eventually.

The other thing that might happen is that your parents close themselves off- and you reach a very anti-climactic finish. Don't be tempted to argue just because you were expecting to- but read my earlier post about talking to your family.

Talk to your family

2009-06-20T16:00:00.000-05:00

I have come here today to discuss something uncomfortable, because you need to get used to it.

Your family shares genes with you and you grew up with them- so no matter how different you might feel, they are almost exactly like you. Only more indoctrinated.
This is of course, assuming you are a deconvert.

Families that have to deal with differences of opinion usually arrive at the same congruent conclusion- just don't talk about it.
Well- you need to talk about it. You need to talk about it until you are blue in the face and they are quite red. Talk and talk until they understand.

For most people, they are born into a belief system and then come to question it as they get older. They either go through a phase of questioning and come back eventually, but some people do not. Some people break the mold and then branch off into a different avenue of thought. Sometimes they become Atheists. Sometimes they become Christians. Sometimes they become Moonies.
You might become active in your religion/lack thereof and try to bring your family around- but they most likely won't come to your side of the fence so easily. What happens?
We shut up.
We silence our viewpoints so as not to start fights(because its about the art of not arguing isn't it?) and to keep the peace- but we might rail on a stranger for ever and ever just because you know that if you mess up, your relationship won't be permanently effected.

This is our greatest fear: commitment. Committing our relationship to be harder than it was- but in doing so we rob ourselves of the depth that could come of it.
Some of the deepest places on earth are rifts that were torn open by tidal forces, then laid bare is the core of the planet- glowing for all to see.
This is the nature of your relationship with someone you really care about. You have that friend who you can fight with and then immediately stop when the commercials are over. You can scream and accuse and call each other names and then when the check comes(or the manager asks you to leave) you can offer to pay the check and ask what time the movie is.
People who you can be truly honest with no matter what their belief are your greatest allies because they accept you for who you are.
This is what I am getting at with your family: They should be these people. They should be the people that you can share with and yell at and cry in front of without losing ground or losing face. But more often than not we lose that connection when we deconvert from their belief system and go off on our own. Instead of ripping down the walls we just build them higher and thicker, stronger and firmer.

I understand that it is hard to talk with your parents when they are so emotional. When they yell and you try to stay calm- but the truth is that it is an emotional time. You have to let them yell. You have to let them cry and scream and try to punish you for your beliefs.
But you also have to do the same thing.

Remember: You are not having a formal debate with your parents or your friends. Your siblings are not going to grade you, and you can mess up and change your mind. They might call you on it because they want to win- but you can do the same thing. You watched them grow up- you watched your parents mature from frightened child-adults to seasoned human beings and you know they and their opinions aren't perfect- so why should yours be?

And listen. Listening cannot hurt- especially if you have true conviction for your worldview. Remember: learning new facts does not nessecarily change the whole foundation upon which you've built everything, but shutting everything else out weakens the whole structure- makes it stiff and brittle.
What your family has learned in their time in the world is no less valid than what you have- they have simply gone in a different direction. It is OK to not realize things about the world- there is only so much you can focus on.

This, of course, applies to adults who are not living under the same roof as their family.
Shortly I'll post my Guide To Comming Out of the Chapel- How to tell your parents you believe differently.

Negligent Parents and Our Heavenly Father

2009-06-18T19:13:00.000-05:00

I hear more and more every day about negligent parents who turn to prayer at the exclusion of medical treatment or even insulin for diabetic children.
Why is this allowed to happen? This isn't religious freedom- this is negligent homicide.
I am angry. I am angry that in this country, people who listen to the wrong kind of music, or are too young, or are going through a divorce can lose their kids for the slightest of wrongs but parents who refuse medical treatment are untouchable until the child dies. I understand if you take your kid off into the wilderness- live off the grid or in very small towns this might go by unnoticed. But not in Phoenix, Arizona. Not in Pittsburgh. Not in Detroit. These are only few of far too many cases of children being killed or disfigured due to "Christian Science", Fundementalism and overall anti-intellectualism.
These parents are unfit- and people who believe they know better than a medical professional(seeking second opinions is fine. But look for someone who has the same credentials and not just anyone) and turn to things that have been proven ineffective for treatment of their most precious charges should be declared thus.

Speaking of unfit parents- why hasn't the cosmic child protective services placed us in a foster home? I am sure a nice loving Buddha or Ra would love to have us(as long as they don't live together).

Seriously though- the analogy of the "father" falls very short here- allowing your children to learn the hard way is nothing new- but even us flawed humans grab our children before they fall to their deaths- we bail them out of prison and give them a stern talking to or at least try to discern why they were there in the first place- why are we not better taken care of? Why exactly is prayer so ineffectual?
Looking at the world, seeing the horrors we inflict on each other- one might say that God gave us Free Will and, like a child playing with matches- we hurt ourselves time and time again. It's a learning experience. But what about natural disasters where children and innocents die? What about all the thousands of times that pure bad luck or a series of unfortunate events results in the death of torture of people who have done nothing wrong?
I man, these people ARE Christians lots of times- they DO pray and there are many avenues for God to intervene(like making it more apparent that they should have gone left instead of right- or causing them not to sneeze while the nazis are downstairs?) so what happens? Does God just not care? Or can he not intervene? Or does the Free Will limitation apply in Chaos Theory? You chose not to dust the attic and so now you must sneeze- off to the camps with you!
But people who ARE "blessed"- blessed by something like a movie to cheer them up or a 5 dollar bill on the ground so they could grab some coffee- these things are fair game for God to claim but the bad things that happen by coincidence are somehow our fault. God can inspire people to write bibles, can kill the firstborn of an entire village, can come down from heaven and traipse about the countryside of one very small area spreading the only way to get to heaven to a very select few small villages while neglecting to mention anything that would permanently validate the religion to the rest of the world and then die, knowing full well the message would not be spread far and wide for hundreds of years, effectively damning most of the population of the earth for thouands of years to hell- he can do all of that, but he can't inspire people not to sell children into slavery or have a change of heart when they purposefully addict teens to heroin- he can do that but still 1 in every 120 children is born with a servere, life altering birth defect from which they may never recover.

Someone, please get us out of here.

implications != truth value

2009-06-16T18:30:00.000-05:00

This is a symptom of people who either do not think critically or people who hold off on thinking critically about certain aspects of their lives.
You know the people I am talking about- people who refuse to believe something or even consider it because of "what it would mean".
This is such a strong cultural phenomenon that it has become a common plot point and aspect of stereotypical characters.

The problem with this argument is that no matter what the consequences of something being true are, they do not make it any less true.
For a bad example, holocaust deniers are not always white supremacists- sometimes they are people who are simply nieve. People who don't want to believe the horrible things that happened because that would simply mean that horrible things have happened in the past- unimaginably horrible things.
For a more realistic example, most western Christians deny a lot of things to themselves, but one strikes me as particularly offensive. That Atheists have morals that are equal to or even better than their own, and that they follow them. That can't be, because that would mean they either aren't morally superior, or that they don't have a monopoly on morality, or that morals are a conclusion you can come to on your own, without God's intercession.
This idea is so frightening that it is more often than not shut completely out of their thoughts, dismissed as an impossibility.
Another disturbing example is one of creationism- people taking the oversimplification of it too far and then being offended that they may share a common ancestry with many modern primates today or "that my grandma was a monkey".
Or that we are not "any different than the animals"(of course, larger brains and better adaptability, as well as culture and language makes us completely the same as animals.) and thusly not "special".
This kind of thinking is infantile at best, and destructive at worst.
The scary part is that they are allowed to teach this to their children.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics(the question of odds)

2009-06-11T09:56:00.000-05:00

A very common argument creationists make is the one of odds. Do you know what the odds of this happening are?
Well, the odds of it happening if they think you are "undecided" or less educated than they are are 1:1 - it is their standard go-to argument.
I have many complaints about this.

First, the odds are usually false, or pulled completely out of thin air. The odds of a cell forming randomly out of nothing are the same as a hurricane assembling a perfectly functional 747 out of random metal scraps it picks up off the beach.

This is typical oversimplification. A related tactic is to compare evolution to saying "we came from goo" or "from a monkey". Or to say "one day a monkey gave birth to a human".

The fundamental problem with BOTH of these claims is that they demonstrate nothing more than a serious lack of understanding.

I of course could attempt to educate you here but I suspect that the main people who will read this blog are people who know me and people on the far end of either side of the "debate"- in which case you either already know or don't care to educate yourself. Or a strange combination of the two.

I will instead delve into the(perceived) reasoning behind such arguments.

The main reason these arguments come about is because someone leading the masses makes them up. Most, if not all of the arguments of creationism are not original, but come from a single source and are endlessly repeated over and over again by followers that say "wow that sounds really good! I'm going to use that! That will stump those Atheists!" - which brings me to the point and main flaw behind creationism.
It is the same problem we get when a horrible travesty occurs and everyone overwhelmingly and unequivocally takes ONE SIDE of an argument. This is illustrated here.
The idea is this(if you didn't click the link above)- someone does something really horrible and everyone else in the world judges them for it. Everyone takes part in the judging because it makes them feel superior and because they need someone to be better, or smarter, or more morally sound than. They have to be RIGHT.
The need to be right is very strong within people. It's strong within me, and within you- and within your dear old grandmother sitting at home knitting and watching jeopardy.
This is the reason why, to me, Christians seem insincere. It is the reason the Pro-choice argument seems less than genuous and the right-wing seems to be full of falsehoods.
It seems that they don't believe their own arguments to some, but I sense a deeper, darker moral problem in society. The cancer of superiority.

The idea is this. If you believed that Hell was a real place, that the unsaved would go there after death and be tortured for all eternity never to see the light of god or their families again- and that there was ANY chance that people you knew, or even people you CARED ABOUT might have to go there to suffer for eternity and you would never see them unless they believed your story or went through a baptism or whatever criteria you believed was required for them to avoid this fate- what would you do?
I for one would be in a crazed-terror state that robbed me of the ability to do anything productive until I brought these people to salvation. And in my mind salvation it would be.
Have you seen the movies where people risk their lives, their jobs and the lives of possibly someone they care about to save many people? Or to warn someone about an impending doom? People that would stop at nothing to save the world or the country or whatever group of people they happened to be with from the utter annihilation they were most certainly faced with?

Why so, do Christians do this? Why do they resign themselves? They might make a fuss when they find out the first time but if they see the train coming why don't they tackle you to make you get out of the way? And why get so angry at people who don't believe? Even to go so far as to wish death upon them? I would hold them safe in a room with no sharp bits or dangerous things nearby until I could talk them into safety. I would do this with everyone.

The reason is that they aren't sure. They strongly believe, but they are not completely sure. The seeds of doubt are in all of them(all of the ones who don't follow you home) and they are simply not sure if they have the right answer. They think the train tracks you've built your home on are still active but they're not ready to set fire to your house to smoke you out of it because they just aren't sure.

Similarly with pro-choice- if you even suspected a child was going to be killed somewhere and you knew where? I would very literally commit crimes much worse than that of the nutjob who murdered George Tiller in front of his family. But the thing is- that man was absolutely sure. Absolutely sure he was killing babies. Obviously I don't condone it or anything like it(and am vehemently opposed.. I'll post about it later.) but I do know that he was one of the few anti-abortionists who did not see a distinction between children born or unborn, and believed that the life of the mother was less sacrosanct than the life of the child.

But Christians and other pro-lifers are very happy to just call you a baby-killer. I mean, nothing they have ever done is as bad as killing babies. They are happy to condemn you and even vandalize your practice- but no one of them would actually do something to put a stop to it, especially if one of their own lives were in danger.

The same thing with hell. Christians, generally older Christians who have had their fill of arguing with atheists and uppity kids, will calmly tell you that they are praying for you- or that "you'll see" at the end, that they were right.

Would they really be so happy to just let you die and burn forever? Could you be happy in a heaven when you knew people were suffering for eternity?

Which brings me back to creationism(remember the original topic?). The main idea of creationism is that people want to be right about something. They want to be right about the bible and genesis so bad that they are willing to lie about it. They are willing to mine quotes, make up statistics and attempt to debunk rational science with fallacious arguments that they are unwilling to see as fallacious because that would admit that one of the fundamental tenants of their faith might be wrong. And some of the worst embarrassment in the world comes from being wrong.

My stereotypical opinion on gay marriage(Ban it along with all the rest of marriages.)

2009-06-09T20:29:00.000-05:00

What? Every atheist blog has to have a post about gay marriage?
Fine. I guess. Here goes.
But I'm not doing the legwork! I'm going to just repost a comment thread I started from The Religious Researcher instead.
This is the post.

I respond

Your arguments are constructed well for a person who operates within the framework of Christianity, however I would like to ask what you think of policy?

Why can’t we just say:
Marriage is a binary contract, between two previously unrelated individuals, for the purpose of creating a relation between them.

Extend rights to support and help EVERYONE in your family, regardless of actual relation as long as it’s within 2(as in, I can buy insurance for my sister and her child since I support them and I can claim them as dependents, and could even adopt my nephew and claim legal rights to him if my sister agrees) which would help everyone get what they needed out of marriage.

This provides for the common good, as in one person who needs to support someone else they love(or are obligated to) extends currently only to spouses and children/grandchildren.

The only reason you shouldn’t be allowed then, to marry your sister, is because a relationship already exists.

The reason I say this is because someone who is going to have gay sex, participate in incest, live a polygamous lifestyle, so on, is going to do it REGARDLESS of legal status, whether they are married to that person or not. Allowing anyone to form a relationship with anyone will remove any possible barriers to people creating legally recognized relationships with people, and does not necessarily mean there is a sexual relationship. For instance I could marry a friend of mine in order to help her get insurance for her child or to take care of her if she had a long-term illness where she was not fully coherent, and did not want her parents to enforce their wishes(like, keeping her on/off life support against her wishes), or to jointly own property between us.

The fact is that these days there are more relationships that need to be legally recognized and enforced and taken into account in court than just “parent and child” and “husband and wife”.

Now you will argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman in legality what it is in the bible, a spiritual relationship for the purpose of childbearing, and that taking that away removes the specialness of it, so on.
While it would be great if only people who were truly in love and people only got married to have kids and everyone had one mommy and one daddy, we live in the real world.
In the real world, we have 55 hour marriages, we have seniors getting married who are infertile, we have shotgun weddings of 16 year-olds who then divorce at 19 and fight for the rest of their lives over the illegitimate children. We have spousal abuse, adultery, battered wife syndrome, golddiggers, people who get married because they are terrified of dying alone, and spousal murder to get out of a messy, costly divorce.

What would me amenable to everyone, regardless of beliefs(as again, we live in the real world where not everyone is Christian and we can’t force them to become so) is if the word “Marriage” was reserved for something recognized by the CHURCH, and civil unions were available to everyone legally recognized as a sentient being, anyone who holds rights can establish a relationship with anyone they don’t already have one with for the purpose of supporting and sharing resources.

He responds

Icy,
The debate over gay marriage is not just about sex. It is about whether we as a society will agree to abandon the belief that the institution of a one-woman, one-man permanent union (called marriage) is a foundational institution for society. Redefining marriage to mean any newly created relationship between two persons is about as arbitrary a redefinition as I can imagine.

Most of your examples of “the real world” are viewed by most people, including most Christians, as also immoral. Bringing up such things as golddiggers and spousal murderers is totally irrelevant to the state’s role in sanctioning marriage. The state can legitimately deny persons the right to marry someone of the same gender, or multiple persons of the opposite gender, etc., even though it cannot prevent people from getting married for less than honorable reasons.

Your example of infertile seniors getting married is also irrelevant. I have not claimed, nor would I, that persons cannot marry unless they have the potential and intention of producing offspring.

I respond

But we arbitrarily redefine marriage, among other things, all the time!

Women: Not property
Interracial marriage: OK
Divorce for a good reason: OK
Divorce for no good reason: Also OK

And that’s just marriage.

But my point is that your argument is faith based. While this is PERFECTLY FINE for your own morals, what you teach your children and to talk about on Sunday or here on your own blog(not really here to change your mind, just challenge it) it’s not really sound for policy.
I’m not sure what the foundational institution for society is, because there are several important words you have to intricately define before you claim what it’s foundations are.

What society? Western society? If so, what kind? Capitalist?

For sake of argument, since we live in here in America and are talking about such, we’ll use our present set of circumstances.

There are plenty of people for whom marriage is not an option, nor is it a desired one. I’m not talking about people who can’t seem to stick to one partner, but people who pursue their careers(not just for money, but doctors and politicians), love to travel too much(ever met an old biker?) or are simply celibate. Catholic priests, for instance are never to be married, at least not to a woman(Married to God I hear quite a bit from them) as are nuns. Are these people just as responsible for destroying society?

Yes, there are not as many of them as there are gays or other people who might wish to marry someone other than a person of the opposite sex for whatever reason, but the number of these people when compared to the population at large is also insignificant(the word insignificant used mathematically in this case).

But here is a case that I think would satisfy your needs.

Government should abolish marriage altogether, as there are no benefits a infertle one man one woman marriage can provide that a gay union can’t(we’re going to go by current research done by independent researchers here) and thusly the benefits should be nullified.
Civil Unions should be the only recognized form(the ‘arbitrary’ definition used earlier for marriage will do) of legal union that can artificially create a legal relationship between two humans.
Marriage, as it originated in the Church, should be controlled by the Church. Anyone wishing to have a marriage in the eyes of God can do so using their own faith community, and it can be settled there, between the couple and God.

This eliminates the need for secularists to complain about the separation of church and state, eliminates the protest of unfairness by exclusion by homosexuals, and puts full control back in local, community churches where pastors can counsel couples to make sure they are ready, and it can be a family event, bringing back the sanctity and morality of marriage without the need to make accommodations for people who are not part of whichever community performing the ceremony.

This is the primary reason behind the separation of church and state. The state should form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty for all citizens of the United States Of America. It doesn’t NEED to be an extension of the church, the church itself can take care of that. People who aren’t going to follow it weren’t going to in the first place, let them go their own way.

These were made in the span of about a day, so he did not respond (I assume he had other blog posts to get to.)

Car Keys are not a miracle.

2009-05-20T12:34:00.000-05:00

I could go over a very long and exhaustive list over what does not count as a miracle and why but that would seriously inhibit my productivity at work(moreso than it is now).
I'll go over a list of the most common things, and explain them, and then I'll define a miracle and explain why if one were to ever happen most Freethinkers would convert on the spot.

Finding something that was lost
Misplacing something is the act of putting it somewhere and forgetting where you put it, or having someone else come along behind you and move that object, and failing to update you on where they moved it to. God does not update your brain on where the location is, you simply start looking in likely places or are looking for another thing when you come across it.

Overcoming a disease
People overcome diseases every day. They also die horribly from completely preventable diseases every day. The act of going to a doctor for something else and finding out you have caught something early enough to treat it is also not a miracle, as many people die from things that, if caught early, can be easily treated(meningitis, tuberculosis).
Many of these people are devout Christians, of all sects and faiths, and you had better believe that many of them believe the same thing you do- they just didn't have the fortune you did.

Babies
Animals are born every day- are they miracles? And so are bugs- are they? Bacteria split in your intestinal tract every second- is that a miracle? Where do you draw the line that new life is or is not a miracle? How about the baby that dies in childbirth? Or the mother? What about the baby that is born to an eleven year old child who was not ready for this to happen to her?

Surviving A Natural Disaster
Obviously, surviving a natural disaster is not a miracle, as if it were a true miracle, no one would have died. Or, only the sinful would have died(which is everyone) or only non-Christians(or the saved, or those who go to church every day, or people of a particular sect) would have died(which is horribly hypocritical) and that would render it not a natural disaster, but a super-natural one.
Point being, why did you(or the subject) survive while others did not.

Needless to say, many people attribute these occurrences as miracles when they are simply not. Or, you bring up the problem of evil/god's great plan. This of course brings up chaos theory which I will address in a later post.

However, miracles are defined neatly for us and it is easy to put any thing to the test if we are simply consistent in our definition. From the great Wikipedia: "A miracle is a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle-worker."
Being that all of the things in this list and many, many others attributed to god or miracles are very explainable and occur in nature frequently we can conclude that miracles DO(not) happen every day and we (don't) need to be thankful for them.

Freethinkers however, upon being presented with evidence of a departure from the laws of nature or something that is unexplainable(not "hasn't been explained" and not "once this happened to me...") by anyone, they will convert to whatever religious explanation actually fits. Here is a video that really explains that, and why.

Santa Claus and Jesus

2009-05-20T09:49:00.000-05:00

My mother was an atheist as I was growing up and although she never really tried to indoctrinate me one way or the other, she was very adamant about Santa Claus.
My parents for some reason held on to Santa Claus as the last bastion of childhood wonder and kept an iron grip. Now, when I was about 5 I snuck out of my room and saw my parents getting bags out of the car and and placing presents under the tree, and at that point I knew Santa Claus was not real. I faked the belief for my parents sake(and because I thought that if I told them I would stop getting presents) but I no longer believed Santa had cameras watching me everywhere I went and knew if I was being bad. This belief really only affected about two days before Xmas but nonetheless, the dream was shattered.
However once I turned 8 or so(these ages are rough guesses), I got tried of the childishness of the game, and my parents thinking I was going to stay up in front of the fireplace again "waiting" for Santa- I am not sure what made me snap but I had the conversation that the jig was up, I knew he wasn't real but not to worry I wouldn't let Ellie(my sister) in on the deal as long as they stopped patronizing me.
The effect this had on my mother was to ramp up efforts to get me to believe, insisting that "Santa IS real we just have to wrap his presents for him" and other various attempts to argue me into belief. My mother became a Santa Apologetic and came up with all manner of "rational" arguements to support the notion that he was real.
At some point she began to explore the abstract in that "Santa is real in all of us" and "You're Santa and I'm Santa" and "Santa is in your heart". Now, my mother IS an athiest and is not simply using Santa as a method to "fill the void" or the other various attempts you are going to use to draw paralells but when I tell you she was ADAMANT I really mean it.
So, what this caused me to do was first, to doubt my own eyes and my own empirical observations, being that my parents were now not just playing a game of pretend with me but actively arguing with me over the existance of a being I knew to be not only unreal, but highly implausible. This also, once I got over my doubts, made me realize that sometimes, my parents lied to me, and that sometimes they did not always know what they were talking about.
This is the closest thing to a "deconversion" story I have as the great Santa debate was the only thing that caused me to momentarily be uncertain as to the reality of Christ and God and to wonder if there was a being that not only knew what I was thinking all the time but was judging me for it.
This faded in time after I found other ASantists at school and spoke with them about their various experiences, including some parents who came clean about the existance of the Big Red Man in the North.

Rebutting Rebuttals...and so on.

2008-06-24T04:08:00.000-05:00

So I found people rebutting the movie I really like, Zeitgeist(I like the first bit). The problem I have with the rebuttals(not rebuttals themselves, I think people should think critically and always look at both sides) is that they are easy to refute when you don't bring numbers and facts into them. SO easy in fact, that I can do it.
Watch as I use their own logic back at them.

Here's the link to the original.

A Review of Zeitgeist, The Movie Part IJuly 13, 2007 Recently, a friend asked me to check out a web site that was asking for help addressing some of the claims made in an anti-Christian movie posted on the web.After watching the first part of Zeitgeist, The Movie the first thing that struck me, besides the obvious errors, was how dated the movie was. Its main argument stems from pointing out parallels between Christian beliefs and other belief systems with the conclusion, implied or blatant that there must therefore be a link. Such reasoning was popular among skeptics in the first half of the 20^th century and earlier, but as more serious work was done, such argument were discarded, particularly after Samuel Sandmel’s article Parallelamania in the 1960s.

So apparently, any parallels are completely useless because parallels can be found anywhere. Because something CAN be made up it therefore IS made up... Is that what I'm getting from this? (Consider Christianity) Please try not to debase your own religion while refuting movies.

The main flaw in such arguments is that they are selective and thus superficial. They are selective in that they take only those things that match, and ignore differences.

Of course there would be differences. The MAJOR, UNLIKELY similarities have yet to be explained while differences that could be explained due to cultural, geological, chronological and cross-culture pollution are not counted.

This leads them to be superficial in that the mere appearance of a parallel however weak (weak?) is taken as a parallel. The net result is that you can find meaning and significance where it does not exist.(Again, please look to your own religion) For example, consider the parallels that have been noted between the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy.(Flawed Analogy. Political assassinations are not the existence of your lord and savior.) The problem scholars found is that the more they looked for parallels the more they found them, even between things that clearly did not have any links. Thus scholars long ago concluded that such parallels were pretty much meaningless.

Again, because you can trick yourself into believing things and finding evidence when there is no evidence there then it is meaningless. Lets all quickly abandon any world views stemming from that.

However a more serious problem occurs with the films choice of parallels. Most of the first part of the film is linked in one way or another to Jesus being born on December 25^th and how this links in with winter solstice celebrations. The problem is that one thing pretty much all scholars agree on, skeptical and believers alike, is that Jesus was not born on December 25^th.

The NT describes the shepherds in the fields with their sheep at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8) which would have been highly unlikely on December 25, and points more to the spring. The reason we celebrate December 25^th is because a couple of centuries after the birth of Christ the church set that date deliberately to replace the Winter solstice celebrations, so of course there is a parallel to the winter solstice, but not for the reasons implied in the film. With this fact alone most of the first half of this part of the film falls apart.

So we can change facts about our lord and savior. We can make up things that are very important, like the time of his birth, but we would never change any words he said or actions he did to further our own agendas. We can change our religion to be easy to convert to and much more attractive to those pagans over there- don't tell them that though- if they find out we changed his birthday that might make us sound less credible.

Another problematic parallel is the movies’ claim that the cross is actually an astrological cross, symbolic of the zodiac. While again there may be a parallel here it is hardly meaningful, and in fact goes straight to the heart of the problem with such reasoning. What the movie ignores is that there is a very good reason Christians use the symbol of the cross and it has nothing at all to do with astrology. Christians refer to the cross because Jesus was crucified on a cross. In short, the cross is a factor in Christianity because it was used in a Roman method of execution, not because of any astrological meaning.

Or that was made up after the fact- finding things that had religious significance and then when writing the story you add in things to make everyone's pagan art not depreciated. We have that in the IT world. It's called backwards compatibility.

Very much the same thing can be said about the movies claim that the crown of thorns represents sun rays.

But even some of the movies parallels don’t quite work out. The movie tries to make the claim that the Bible is really an astrological text and the biblical term “age” refers to the astrological ages such as Tarsus, Aries, Pisces, and Aquarius. The movie makes a point that Jesus was born at just about the time of the beginning of the Age of Pisces (1 AD – 2150 AD). But it also claims that Moses “represents the new age of Aries” and that the reason he broke the tables was because the Jews were worshiping a bull, the symbol of Taurus the previous age. They were in the age of Aries and that is why Jews blow the rams horn.

The idea that Jews use the rams horn because they raised sheep and the horn could be made into a instrument is not really considered.

Or that's why the ram was chosen to be an astrological symbol- it was an animal that was around at the time. Ever notice how the zodiac doesn't seem to have any elephants, polar bears or zebras?

But a more serious problem is that the movie lists the Age of Aries as 2150BC to 1 AD. But even the earliest dates given by scholars for the Exodus, the mid 15^th century BC, is over 650 years after the age began. But no problem Moses was in the age and that is close enough.

So the biblical writers couldn't have gotten that wrong? I mean- they didn't have all of the historical researchers we have today and all of the advanced calendars- or maybe we didn't start really writing shit down about moses until then- and since it's only a story anyway why would the writers have thought to make it correspond? The point is they weren't thinking ahead into the 21st century.

Similar problems arise with the claim that Jesus represents the sign of Pisces whose symbol is 2 fish. Predictably the movie points to the miracle of the feeding of the 5000 thousand. Yet interestingly while they show the text “we only have five loaves of bread and 2 Fish – Matt 14:17” the narrator says “Jesus feeds five thousand people with bread and two fish.” Note the number of loaves of bread is not mentioned by the narrator, while in the text five is spelled out, but not two. Why? The simple reason is that the fish make the parallel they seek, while the bread does not. Wouldn’t a better explanation for the two fish be that, fish were a common food source for that area and in fact if someone would have food, it probably would have been bread and fish?

Why two fish though? Why not 6 fish? 1 fish? 3 fish? Red Fish? Blue Fish? The numbers are seemingly random.

Similarly the movie claims that people do not know what the fish symbol on their cars is actually “pagan astrological symbolism for the sun kingdom during the sign of Pisces.” Of course the real explanation does not fit their parallel, and so is ignored. Early Christians adopted the fish symbol, not for any astrological meaning, but because the Greek word for Fish, IXTHUS, is an acronym for Greek words “Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior.”

Coincidince? I think not. Or maybe so.

Did you ever have to do those acrostic word poems in school? The ones where you take a word and spell it down the page and make words out of it? Like this

Silly

Homo

Erectus

Earnestly

Prays

More next time.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

On Community

2008-05-05T09:32:00.000-05:00

I am reflecting on the lack of community Atheism provides. It is one of the only complaints I have with Atheism, the need to reach out I have an connect with like-minded individuals is a strong one, evolved into us over time. This is particularly difficult as it generally bars me from joining a church, as I am placing an emphasis on like minded.
There is a need of course for us to expose ourselves to people who are not like-minded. It happens in the every day world, we read about those individuals in the media and they are sometimes our leaders and politicians, co-workers and bosses. Dealing exclusively with people who think like you can not only inhibit your development socially but can cause you to completely lose the ability to maintain contact with the rest of the human race.
Imagine if everyone who was religious disappeared off the face of the planet- imagine if everyone who thought radically diffrent things(I'm not talking about minor differences of opinion, I'm talking about major philosophic diffrences) was simply removed from your life- how empty it would be, how few people you would encounter from day to day?
This of course imagines a very desolate world indeed, as most of the population differs from you. A better analogy would be if you suddenly and abruptly became allergic to everyone who considered themselves religious. You would become completely unable to function in the outside world. You would not be able to go to the store, most likely not able to to go work, couldn't order things over the telephone or speak to customer service agents, or engage in any activity that might endanger you by having the possibility of casual talk. This of course is an impossible scenerio however it is similar to the one you might face as a dreaded "Angry Atheist", someone who takes any chance they get to berate and belittle someone who they believe is of "inferior" faith.
Of course, I'd love to be right all the time. I'd love it if I could just tell everyone who was a believer "Oh, I'm sorry you wasted all this time, but it seems you are incorrect" and watch the light of reason dawn on their face as they thank me for their enlightenment. This is unfortunately, impossible. Due to the nature of the human mind, variance is so great that not everyone can think like you. Human experience shapes our minds so much that what comes in through our various senses is generally the same, but through all the filters and lenses and additives and omissions we have to sort through, some of us are incapable of reaching the same conclusion others are capable of reaching. This is not to say on either side that certain experiences result in the right answer, but merely that the lens of human experience that we all look through is imperfect, and nearly impossible to discard when judging things such as philosophy and matters of the heart.
I personally, simply cannot come to the conclusion that the bible is anything but a very old book that's been preserved, rewritten, translated into languages that it was never meant to be translated into, edited, added, subtracted, misquoted, taken out of context, and finally made to fit into a place that is far from it's original location, often poorly done. This is because of my experience with science, my particular brand of common sense, my sensibilities and my emotions.
I've read parts of the bible, most of it makes no sense, repeats itself many times for no discernible reason, and means nothing to me or my life. This is what I believe and it's not particularly likely to change any time soon.
My experience however, especially with living in north Texas, is that most Christians seem to think that I have simply not done my research. I have not read that magic amount of the bible, in the right places, that ties it all together to make sense, proves its authenticity and comes into the context of the 21st century. This is difficult however to explain(i.e. the fact that I don't start out with the assumption that the bible is automatically true) and thus I get scripture quoted to me more often than not, generally something to either scare me or entice me with potential rewards.
These things are not the basis for my choosing to believe something.
I do not choose to believe something because I am afraid of something. I do not choose to believe something because I think that if I do it, I will be rewarded somehow, or because I think it will make me happier or make me feel better.
I choose to believe something because it stands on it's own merit. I choose to believe it because there is enough evidence that it stands by itself, only supported by previous established knowledge.
This is the creed of the Atheist, and it is my creed. I pay an unfair price, the sacrifice of community, but I simply cannot pretend to believe something to go with the flow, to become a part of the group or get along with someone better.